Re: Alternate Peerage methods (was: BoD goes mad)
- From: John Groseclose <bill@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 10:36:40 -0700
In article <Iq3y8u.2Mo@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Wilson Heydt <whheydt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Minor counter-quibble - The orginal account specified, as you say,
> an assault on someone in a cast and thus at least temporarily
> disabled or "crippled". There was no claim that the attack further
> crippled that individual. The lastest claim does assert that.
>
> --
> Hal Heydt
I've been unable to locate such an assertion - can you provide the
quote that states that the man who was originally in a cast and using a
cane when he was attacked was further crippled by the attack?
Iain
--
spam delenda est
.
- References:
- Re: BoD goes mad with Power(tm)
- From: Dennis M. O'Connor
- Re: Alternate Peerage methods (was: BoD goes mad)
- From: Dennis M. O'Connor
- Re: Alternate Peerage methods (was: BoD goes mad)
- From: Wilson Heydt
- Re: Alternate Peerage methods (was: BoD goes mad)
- From: John Groseclose
- Re: Alternate Peerage methods (was: BoD goes mad)
- From: Wilson Heydt
- Re: BoD goes mad with Power(tm)
- Prev by Date: Re: Alternate Peerage methods (was: BoD goes mad)
- Next by Date: Re: Alternate Peerage methods (was: BoD goes mad)
- Previous by thread: Re: Alternate Peerage methods (was: BoD goes mad)
- Next by thread: Re: Alternate Peerage methods (was: BoD goes mad)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|